APHC010645152022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2469/2022 Between: Marella Venkata Prathap ...PETITIONER AND Adem Krishnaiah and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SIVA JYOTHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. L J VEERA REDDY 2. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2469 of 2022 ORDER: 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 29.09.2022 in I.A.No.199 of 2019 in O.S.No.1 of 2019 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District, in permitting the proposed Defendant to come on record as Defendant No.3 to the suit proceedings. 2. The Petitioner herein is the Plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for grant of permanent injunction. As per the plaint, the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Marella Venkata Subbaiah. The said individual had three sons and two daughters. On 06.06.1977, the said Marella Venkata Subbaiah had executed a registered Will vide document bearing No.43/1977 in favour of his three sons equally. Accordingly, his three sons succeeded to the property after the death of late Marella Venkata Subbaiah and constructed a new house having three portions after obtaining permission from the Municipality. One of the three sons by name Marella Venkata Rayulu executed a registered Gift Deed dated 15.12.2014 in favour of his wife Marella Narayanamma. Thereafter, the said Marella Narayanamma i.e. the mother of the Petitioner/Plaintiff executed a registered Gift Deed on 18.06.2016 in favour of the Petitioner/Plaintiff. As the Defendants/Respondents 2 & 3 were interfering with the proposed construction of house by the Petitioner/Plaintiff in the schedule property, the suit was filed for the above mentioned relief. 3. While so, Respondent No.1 i.e. the proposed Defendant filed the present application seeking to come on record as the Defendant No.3 to the suit proceedings on the ground that the suit schedule property 3 originally belonged to one Adem Subbanna, who executed a Will dated 12.02.1957 in favour of his wife Adem Subbamma. After the death of Adem Subbanna, his wife Adem Subbamma became the absolute owner of the said site. The said Adem Subbamma executed a Will dated 11.09.1997 in favour of the Respondent No.1/Proposed Defendant. 4. On the basis of the said Will, the Respondent No.1/Proposed Defendant sought to come on record as the Defendant No.3 to the suit. It was also pleaded that the Respondent No.1/proposed Defendant filed a suit O.S.No.167 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kadapa seeking for the relief of declaration of his right over the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. The said suit was dismissed for default and applications were filed seeking for restoration of the suit. 5. The trial Court taking into consideration the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the application filed by the Respondent No.1/proposed Defendant allowed the application by permitting him to come on record as Defendant No.3 to the suit proceedings. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 6. Heard Smt. M. Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/proposed Defendant. 7. The Respondent No.1/proposed Defendant is claiming title to the schedule property by virtue of an un-registered Will dated 11.09.1997 said to have been executed in his favour by Adem Subbamma and the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession was also dismissed. Even as per the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the implead application also, the Respondent No.1/proposed Defendant is not in 4 possession of the schedule property and in that context, the Respondent No.1 is not a ‘necessary party’. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is set-aside. 8. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is therefore allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 12.02.2025 IS 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2469 of 2022 Date: 12.02.2025 IS